At its Wednesday conferences, the Supreme Court has been routinely issuing orders that could lead to evidentiary hearings around the state about whether there are illegal “racial disparities” in treating defendants. Any relief afforded at those hearings could, I imagine, affect scores, if not hundreds, of convictions.
Most recently, ruling on a pro per’s habeas corpus petition in In re Walker, the court issued an order to show cause, returnable in the superior court, “why petitioner is not entitled to appointment of counsel pursuant to Penal Code section 1473, subdivision (e), in light of statistical data provided by petitioner demonstrating racial disparities in Three Strikes sentences imposed in Orange County.” (See here.)
Section 1473(e) is part of California’s Racial Justice Act, enacted in 2020. The heart of the RJA is section 745, a detailed statute starting with the admonition, “The state shall not seek or obtain a criminal conviction or seek, obtain, or impose a sentence on the basis of race, ethnicity, or national origin.” Section 1473 authorizes habeas corpus petitions to challenge section 745 violations, requires the appointment of counsel for petitioners alleging facts that would establish a violation, and mandates an evidentiary hearing upon a prima facie showing of an entitlement to relief.
It’s not only Three Strikes sentences in Orange County that are potentially at risk. In just the last three months, the court has made orders similar to the one in Walker that set up possible evidentiary hearings concerning allegations of racial disparities in “incarceration and arrest rates under the Three Strikes law in Ventura County” (see here), “Three Strikes sentences imposed in Los Angeles County” (see here, here, and here), “the imposition of gang enhancements in Monterey County” (see here), “Alameda County’s arrest and prison incarceration rates” (see here), “the imposition of Three Strikes sentences in Sacramento County” (see here), “the imposition of firearm enhancements in San Joaquin County” (see here), “the imposition of Three Strikes sentences in San Diego County” (see here), “sentencing under special circumstances law in Riverside County” (see here), and “prison populations in various California counties and racial disparities in sentencing under the Three Strikes law” (see here).
Bob Egelko reports in today’s San Francisco Chronicle on other, new RJA actions: “Lawsuits launched in six California counties challenge widespread racial sentencing disparities.”
And, of course, there’s also the writ petition in Office of the State Public Defender v. Bonta challenging the death penalty system statewide on grounds the system is administered in a racially discriminatory manner that violates the state Constitution. (See here.) The court could require a trial on the petition. The petition has been pending before the court for over 19 months, most recently put on hold for Taking Offense v. State of California (see here and here), which was decided 10 days ago.
Related:
